barterer2002 wrote:Each player gets 18 scores: 4 majors, their BEST 10 Premium event scores, and their BEST 16 Regular event scores. This gives an advantage to those who play in the most tournaments, as they'll be able to kick out bad scores, but still allows a player who can't handle the game load of some of the tournaments to have a shot at the win.

I really like this change. Now I wont get punished when I can't make those darn speed tournaments.

I agree, this looks great. Good work guys, I'm looking forward to it.

Important Tournament Notice

The data for ALL of my tournaments has potentially been lost. I am working to recover it but as I am away on business all of this week, there will be some delay. Sincere apologies.

Personally the only suggestion I would have is having at least 8 weeks off so making it like a 44 week season lasting a year.

I know for myself I was bogged down by real life and had to start dropping and not joining TPA events. I wish I could have played in all of them and that was my original goal but it was impossible for myself.

Maybe a suggestion for season three. Just a thought and by no means should the TPA be catered for myself.

It was and is a great idea and has been executed wonderfully.

Edit--after reading the new scoring this is a mute idea.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.

HighlanderAttack wrote:Personally the only suggestion I would have is having at least 8 weeks off so making it like a 44 week season lasting a year.

I know for myself I was bogged down by real life and had to start dropping and not joining TPA events. I wish I could have played in all of them and that was my original goal but it was impossible for myself.

Maybe a suggestion for season three. Just a thought and by no means should the TPA be catered for myself.

It was and is a great idea and has been executed wonderfully.

Edit--after reading the new scoring this is a mute idea.

that's a very good suggestion. i think there is going to be quite a lot of overlap from season to season and shortening the year would help to alleviate that i think. plus it would be nice to have a breather in between seasons or skip a week here and there just to break it up.

Hopefully we've solved this issue by 1) taking a 3 month break between seasons and 2) changing up the scoring system so players aren't penalized for not getting into all the events. I like 52 weeks as I know there are players who look every monday for a tournament and throwing in an off week or two throws that off a little. WIth the ability to not join all of the events it should keep that pressure off of players.

I like the suggested changes. (I'm still relatively new on CC, so I haven't had any impact on the TPA until now, but I hope to be on the scoreboard and perhaps even included in the roster of TOs next season.)

One thing I would suggest is renaming the "Premium" events in the Major/Premium/Standard division. For that matter, I would even rename Standard, the reason being simply one of avoiding ambiguity. Because Premium and Standard are already terms that have specific meanings on CC, they shouldn't be used to designate something else. I realize that any confusion can easily be cleared up, but the best option is always to eliminate even the possibility of confusion.

Hank, the other issue that you're going to have to deal with is that there is a requirement this year that any TO may not have had an abandoned tournament during the previous year. I know you had a few over the winter. Now that doesn't rule you out as someone could be put on the schedule for more than a year from now but its something that you'll have to work on.

But no, there are still spots available.

And NS is right, Major/Premier/Standard are the three types. Should we change the name of standard?

barterer2002 wrote:Hank, the other issue that you're going to have to deal with is that there is a requirement this year that any TO may not have had an abandoned tournament during the previous year. I know you had a few over the winter. Now that doesn't rule you out as someone could be put on the schedule for more than a year from now but its something that you'll have to work on.

But no, there are still spots available.

And NS is right, Major/Premier/Standard are the three types. Should we change the name of standard?

how about this if I improve my reputation then when somebody isn't able to complete a TPA Tournament Im the first man you call

Hank, I'm always happy to have new TPA TOs involved. one of the issues in Year 1 that bothered me was TOs who didn't/couldn't finish their tournaments. To that end we've put in a rule for year two that nobody can host who has an abandoned within the past year (from the time their TPA event begins). So yes, if you improve your reputation and move forward completing the tournaments that you begin I'll be happy to get you onto the schedule. I am probably going to have some of the later dates still open for a bit to allow for new TOs who show up around CC. Keep up with everything, run good tournaments and we'll look at a basic tournament for you once you've got a clear year of history. Fair enough?

I hadn't really cared much about the names until this recent discussion but, since it's been brought up, I would tend to think that a "premier" event is of more importance than a "major" event. My suggestion would be: Grand Slam Event, Major Event, Minor Event.

Secondly, while I recognize the desire to put an emphasis on participation on the key events, leading to the scoring of 100% of the 4 MAJORS, 62.5% of the 16 PREMIERS, and 50% of the 32 STANDARD events, The scoring becomes weighted heaviest on the PREMIER (mid-level) events since4 MAJORS = 16 STANDARDS10 PREMIERS = 20 STANDARDS; and16 STANDARDS = 16 STANDARDS

While only a minor tweak, I'd consider reducing the number of premier events scored from 10 to 8 (50%) so that each event category contributes approximately the same number of points for the top finishers. Though, I understand there would be more total points awarded for events with more participants (likely MAJORS and PREMIERS).

While I feel the reduction to 8 premiers makes a bit more sense, I do see the benefit of keeping it at 10 and am basically just throwing out the idea as a discussion point.

MudPuppy wrote:I hadn't really cared much about the names until this recent discussion but, since it's been brought up, I would tend to think that a "premier" event is of more importance than a "major" event. My suggestion would be: Grand Slam Event, Major Event, Minor Event.

I think Major should definitely stay at the top. It's the same term that Professional Golf and Tennis use. In Tennis, winning the 4 majors is called a Grand Slam; I could definitely see the system looking confusing to a new player who sees the tennis analogy, Grand Slam tournaments, and Major tournaments, all in the same post.

I agree Standard is confusing since it's a game type. I would go Major/Premier/Minor or General (I know that's a CC word too)

jrh_cardinal wrote:I think Major should definitely stay at the top. It's the same term that Professional Golf and Tennis use. In Tennis, winning the 4 majors is called a Grand Slam

Good point... I somehow forgot that Grand Slams were made up of Majors. I'll retract my suggestion in favor of keeping Major #1. Still think Premier sounds like a higher level but I'm sure I'll be able to keep them in order.